3 ms·

I'm sorry, but there is no way to quantify that. Consider, for example, a recent Ars article: http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/08/no-this-isnt-a-scene-from

I'm sorry, but there is no way to quantify that. Consider, for example, a recent Ars article: http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/08/no-this-isnt-a-scene-from-minority-report-this-trash-can-is-stalking-you/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/08/no-this-isnt-a-scene... What about the MAC addresses that Google gathered when driving around for street view? What about data that software gathers on your PC or mobile devices without your knowing, or location data that is made available to mobile carriers and law enforcement simply by the act of communicating with a cell phone tower? What of spyware/maleware, etc? Even so, the "leaked private information [...] given voluntarily to corporations" is very different than dragnet surveillance. There is no way to know as of yet exactly how much information has been gathered through such programs, but recent revelations suggest startling amounts of data that are far more invasive and vast than anything that could ever be leaked: more information than the NSA is capable of processing, as mentioned in the Guardian's XKeyscore revelation article. So, no; not 0.1%. > But the way it's presented now plays into the hands of those who wish to use the NSA fiasco (which, to be sure, it is) to hide a much more serious problem. I don't see how suggesting software to help limit the scope of surveillance does anything to hide the underlying problem. If anything, it brings action upon it and suggests that users will not stand for being surveilled in this manner.

pron 13y ago
> What about the MAC addresses that Google gathered when driving around for street view? What about data that software gathers on your PC or mobile devices without your knowing, or location data that is made available to mobile carriers and law enforcement simply by the act of communicating with a cell phone tower? What of spyware/maleware, etc? Great, so we can say that far more information flows to corporations, voluntarily or involuntarily, than to the government. And privacy software won't help with most of the cases you mentioned. > There is no way to know as of yet exactly how much information has been gathered through such programs, but recent revelations suggest startling amounts of data that are far more invasive and vast than anything that could ever be leaked: more information than the NSA is capable of processing, as mentioned in the Guardian's XKeyscore revelation article. I would still venture to say that Google analyses (if not collects) far more private information than the NSA, and unlike the NSA, Google uses that information all the time. > I don't see how suggesting software to help limit the scope of surveillance does anything to hide the underlying problem. If anything, it brings action upon it and suggests that users will not stand for being surveilled in this manner. Because, it's like having an awareness campaign after a horrible home-invasion that encourages people to dig moats in their back yards, and all the while their kids are letting strangers in through the front door. It's saying, there's a privacy issue, and here it is, while it's somewhere else completely. A classic diversion.

pron 13y ago

> What about the MAC addresses that Google gathered when driving around for street view? What about data that software gathers on your PC or mobile devices without your knowing, or location data that is made available to mobile carriers and law enforcement simply by the act of communicating with a cell phone tower? What of spyware/maleware, etc? Great, so we can say that far more information flows to corporations, voluntarily or involuntarily, than to the government. And privacy software won't help with most of the cases you mentioned. > There is no way to know as of yet exactly how much information has been gathered through such programs, but recent revelations suggest startling amounts of data that are far more invasive and vast than anything that could ever be leaked: more information than the NSA is capable of processing, as mentioned in the Guardian's XKeyscore revelation article. I would still venture to say that Google analyses (if not collects) far more private information than the NSA, and unlike the NSA, Google uses that information all the time. > I don't see how suggesting software to help limit the scope of surveillance does anything to hide the underlying problem. If anything, it brings action upon it and suggests that users will not stand for being surveilled in this manner. Because, it's like having an awareness campaign after a horrible home-invasion that encourages people to dig moats in their back yards, and all the while their kids are letting strangers in through the front door. It's saying, there's a privacy issue, and here it is, while it's somewhere else completely. A classic diversion.